Monthly Archives: September 2011

Re: Magna Carta and Rights Declarations

Posted on by
Re: The Magna Carta (1215)
This was my first time reading the Magna Carta. Although I’ve been aware of the document since my childhood, I never really cared to learn what it entailed and had no idea about the historical context out which it came. So I approached the text “knowing” that it had to do with what we today understand as human rights, and that it was one of the key historical documents in the shaping of our societies into more egalitarian and responsible societies. As far as wording and layout of the document, I imagined it to be closer in language and format to the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789). 
Upon reading say, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, or the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States, I could see the direct influence (or even continuation) of several of the statements/laws presented in the Magna Carta. The similarities are attested by the fact that they, as historical documents are grouped together. I was struck, however, by a difference between the Magna Carta and the latter documents: The U.S. Constitution speaks on behalf of “We the People” and the French Declaration is put forth by “the representatives of the French people”. Both imply the declarations as 
stemming from an understanding of “the people” as the common citizenry. The Magna Carta, on the other hand, is striking in its introduction, so convoluted with titles of royalty and ecclesiastical top brass. 
The Magna Carta seemed to be a document for and by the elite of the time rather than for the common understanding of “the people”. Although the liberties that are first granted to the Church and the royals are extended to all “freemen”, my understanding of that term in the historical context is not sufficient to determine who inclusive the document really is, although I have an inkling that the answer is “not very”. 
This difference between who is declaring and what they are declaring is very interesting to me. While the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration are both known to be exclusive as well in their definitions of who exactly counts as possessor of the rights declared (through exclusions like property-ownership, gender, age, etc), they seem to assert the rights of the populace directly, as the main point of the document. The Magna Carta, contrasts in my opinion in that it grants rights to the general population more as an outcome of the rules of conduct set for the elites, than as the general purpose of the document. For example point 15 seems to be a precursor to tenant’s rights but is phrased directed towards the conduct of landowners. 
I found of interest (and surprising as well) the document’s calls for what I interpreted as labor rights (point 23), separation of the judiciary from law enforcement (point 24), rent control (point 25). I found of sociological/historical interest the explicit racism of the law in the distinct treatment of debts owed to Jews (point 11). And I also found of interest the idea that the ‘liberties’ seemed more to be held by institutions/places (point 1, point 13) than by individuals.
I was more familiar with several of the more recent documents and declarations of rights, and I expected the Magna Carta to have been no different to those. It was an interesting text to read and I am still fitting my interpretation of it into my understanding of “human rights” and their history as a concept. 


Peace

Re: Magna Carta and Rights Declarations

Posted on by
Re: The Magna Carta (1215)
This was my first time reading the Magna Carta. Although I’ve been aware of the document since my childhood, I never really cared to learn what it entailed and had no idea about the historical context out which it came. So I approached the text “knowing” that it had to do with what we today understand as human rights, and that it was one of the key historical documents in the shaping of our societies into more egalitarian and responsible societies. As far as wording and layout of the document, I imagined it to be closer in language and format to the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789). 
Upon reading say, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, or the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States, I could see the direct influence (or even continuation) of several of the statements/laws presented in the Magna Carta. The similarities are attested by the fact that they, as historical documents are grouped together. I was struck, however, by a difference between the Magna Carta and the latter documents: The U.S. Constitution speaks on behalf of “We the People” and the French Declaration is put forth by “the representatives of the French people”. Both imply the declarations as 
stemming from an understanding of “the people” as the common citizenry. The Magna Carta, on the other hand, is striking in its introduction, so convoluted with titles of royalty and ecclesiastical top brass. 
The Magna Carta seemed to be a document for and by the elite of the time rather than for the common understanding of “the people”. Although the liberties that are first granted to the Church and the royals are extended to all “freemen”, my understanding of that term in the historical context is not sufficient to determine who inclusive the document really is, although I have an inkling that the answer is “not very”. 
This difference between who is declaring and what they are declaring is very interesting to me. While the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration are both known to be exclusive as well in their definitions of who exactly counts as possessor of the rights declared (through exclusions like property-ownership, gender, age, etc), they seem to assert the rights of the populace directly, as the main point of the document. The Magna Carta, contrasts in my opinion in that it grants rights to the general population more as an outcome of the rules of conduct set for the elites, than as the general purpose of the document. For example point 15 seems to be a precursor to tenant’s rights but is phrased directed towards the conduct of landowners. 
I found of interest (and surprising as well) the document’s calls for what I interpreted as labor rights (point 23), separation of the judiciary from law enforcement (point 24), rent control (point 25). I found of sociological/historical interest the explicit racism of the law in the distinct treatment of debts owed to Jews (point 11). And I also found of interest the idea that the ‘liberties’ seemed more to be held by institutions/places (point 1, point 13) than by individuals.
I was more familiar with several of the more recent documents and declarations of rights, and I expected the Magna Carta to have been no different to those. It was an interesting text to read and I am still fitting my interpretation of it into my understanding of “human rights” and their history as a concept. 


Peace

Sovereignty in Bolivia

Posted on by

Wikileaks: UN Declaration Raised US Fears Over Indigenous Land Rights, Sovereignty, Anti-Free Market Movements

Gale Courey Toensing reports on Wikileaks cables that present evidence that the US government has fears about the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and how it could be used to prevent US companies from operating in Bolivia and other Latin American countries.   It is a fascinating article, which has many different avenues of interest to it; including the seemingly never ending Wikileaks saga, the sovereignty of indigenous peoples over their land, the struggle between people and corporate interests, and the distribution of wealth.

Hi folks

Posted on by
Hi. My name is Isabelle Maurice-Hammond and I'm a last minute drop in in this class. As such, I have a lot of catching up to do.

I'm an third year Anthropology major, and as of three days ago, a Latin American Studies minor. Three days ago was when I discovered that I could actually pursue this as a minor, at which point I dropped English Lit. like a hot potatoe. I am in this class because I have a very deep interest in Latin America, especially when it pertains to Indigenous or women's rights. Having lived in Honduras, and having an adopted brother from there, has also contributed in kindling my interest in this part of the world as well as the various cultures found there.

Ultimately, however, I want to go into Mesoamerican archaeology and teach while conducting my own research. I simply want my knowledge of Latin America to be multi faceted, and not completely rooted in the past.

Hi folks

Posted on by
Hi. My name is Isabelle Maurice-Hammond and I'm a last minute drop in in this class. As such, I have a lot of catching up to do.

I'm an third year Anthropology major, and as of three days ago, a Latin American Studies minor. Three days ago was when I discovered that I could actually pursue this as a minor, at which point I dropped English Lit. like a hot potatoe. I am in this class because I have a very deep interest in Latin America, especially when it pertains to Indigenous or women's rights. Having lived in Honduras, and having an adopted brother from there, has also contributed in kindling my interest in this part of the world as well as the various cultures found there.

Ultimately, however, I want to go into Mesoamerican archaeology and teach while conducting my own research. I simply want my knowledge of Latin America to be multi faceted, and not completely rooted in the past.

Declarations and Bills of Rights

Posted on by

         The multiple declarations and bills of rights that were the focus of this weeks readings I found to be repetitive and rather tedious, especially the older ones like the Magna Carta and British Bill of Rights. Rather than protection of human rights these older documents contained protection for property-owning males and the right of the upper class against the monarchy.

        The majority of the rights documents tend to protect against abuse of rights by government. They strive towards equal protection under the law and voice a common desire to have fair trials and humane punishments for wrongdoing. The declarations of Human Rights on the other hand tend to assign greater rights to mankind however the inability to actually enforce or guarantee many of the rights protected by these documents (eg. UN deceleration of Human Rights) seems to make them idealist goals rather than the voicing of actual rights.

         The balance that many of the declarations seems to be trying to find is one between individual freedom and societal rights. In countries where there is a historical basis for governmental abuse, there seems to be a greater emphasis on the protection of man from state rather than that of the state being responsible to assure equality of man.

Readings for Sept 19: Declarations of Rights

Posted on by
The list of readings this week certainly seemed daunting, but once I jumped in, I found I started to see the links between every document - other than the most obvious one of course being that they all have to do with human rights. Had someone asked me prior to reading these documents where the foundation for the rights we enjoy today had come from, I doubt I would have thought of the Magna Carta. However it quickly becomes evident both through reading through the rights guaranteed, and seeing the countless other charters which have been created since 1215, these rights are clearly much cruder than those we hold today - and thank god there has been change.


While none of the so called "classic" readings on the list - The English Bill of Rights, the US Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration on the Rights of Man etc. - surprised me for being on the list, I was surprised that I myself had never truly realized their value. I realized that had these documents not been created, and people not died for the rights they now guarantee, I wouldn't be enjoying the freedoms that I do right now. So seeing that they - among other documents and actions - form a necessary stepping stone towards where we are today was a welcome realization. 


To me these readings seemed to build a ladder of progression to the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights - what I see to be as 2 of the more important documents in this reading list, in that without the charter we would not have the UN (which I feel was at least created with the intent of securing an equal living standard for all nations) and the Declaration of Human Rights is integral to creating the freedoms we have today, and what many others in the world are fighting to also obtain or are being routinely denied. 


Some things I personally found interesting while looking at these documents were the mention of the freedom of men and women to marry in Article 16 of the Declaration of Human Rights, and I began to wonder if this right could perhaps be used as a tool of support by those fighting for gay marriage nowadays? The right does not specify that it is the right only for men and women to marry each other - but that "[m]en and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as a marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."


I also found it interesting that many of the documents that have been created in defense of, or to further clarify human rights since the creation of the UN Declaration seem to reiterate the same or similar rights or there has been a need to create charters aimed at very specific issues such as securing economic, political, social, or civil rights. This seems to me to suggest that the UN Declaration itself was not enough, and didn't offer enough protection to one's rights; that despite the creation of this document, certain rights were still being violated in such a way that more narrow charters were created. This also leaves me wondering what future charters may need to be created or whether one day we will have no more need for the creation of more and more charters attempting to stop humans right's injustices happening as a result of "loopholes".

Readings for Sept 19: Declarations of Rights

Posted on by
The list of readings this week certainly seemed daunting, but once I jumped in, I found I started to see the links between every document - other than the most obvious one of course being that they all have to do with human rights. Had someone asked me prior to reading these documents where the foundation for the rights we enjoy today had come from, I doubt I would have thought of the Magna Carta. However it quickly becomes evident both through reading through the rights guaranteed, and seeing the countless other charters which have been created since 1215, these rights are clearly much cruder than those we hold today - and thank god there has been change.


While none of the so called "classic" readings on the list - The English Bill of Rights, the US Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration on the Rights of Man etc. - surprised me for being on the list, I was surprised that I myself had never truly realized their value. I realized that had these documents not been created, and people not died for the rights they now guarantee, I wouldn't be enjoying the freedoms that I do right now. So seeing that they - among other documents and actions - form a necessary stepping stone towards where we are today was a welcome realization. 


To me these readings seemed to build a ladder of progression to the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights - what I see to be as 2 of the more important documents in this reading list, in that without the charter we would not have the UN (which I feel was at least created with the intent of securing an equal living standard for all nations) and the Declaration of Human Rights is integral to creating the freedoms we have today, and what many others in the world are fighting to also obtain or are being routinely denied. 


Some things I personally found interesting while looking at these documents were the mention of the freedom of men and women to marry in Article 16 of the Declaration of Human Rights, and I began to wonder if this right could perhaps be used as a tool of support by those fighting for gay marriage nowadays? The right does not specify that it is the right only for men and women to marry each other - but that "[m]en and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as a marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."


I also found it interesting that many of the documents that have been created in defense of, or to further clarify human rights since the creation of the UN Declaration seem to reiterate the same or similar rights or there has been a need to create charters aimed at very specific issues such as securing economic, political, social, or civil rights. This seems to me to suggest that the UN Declaration itself was not enough, and didn't offer enough protection to one's rights; that despite the creation of this document, certain rights were still being violated in such a way that more narrow charters were created. This also leaves me wondering what future charters may need to be created or whether one day we will have no more need for the creation of more and more charters attempting to stop humans right's injustices happening as a result of "loopholes".

Mexico’s ‘Twitter terrorism’ charges cause uproar

Posted on by
In Mexico, as the mass media have silenced their reporting on violent situations, many people have turned to social networking sites to post or seek information about violence. On 25 August, two Mexican citizens posted information claiming that kidnappings and shootouts by drug gangs were occurring near schools in Veracruz. While the events ended up not being true, panic ensued the streets. Veracruz's Governor now seeks terrorism charges against the tweeters, even though they insist they are innocent and were only resending information that was already circulating on social networks. This event has provoked an outcry from human rights groups and civil liberties advocates who claim that the charges violate the tweeter's right to justice and freedom of expression.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15028214

Mexico’s ‘Twitter terrorism’ charges cause uproar

Posted on by
In Mexico, as the mass media have silenced their reporting on violent situations, many people have turned to social networking sites to post or seek information about violence. On 25 August, two Mexican citizens posted information claiming that kidnappings and shootouts by drug gangs were occurring near schools in Veracruz. While the events ended up not being true, panic ensued the streets. Veracruz's Governor now seeks terrorism charges against the tweeters, even though they insist they are innocent and were only resending information that was already circulating on social networks. This event has provoked an outcry from human rights groups and civil liberties advocates who claim that the charges violate the tweeter's right to justice and freedom of expression.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15028214

Is a universal conception of human rights possible?

Posted on by
            When reading the declarations of human rights chronologically, one can associate the successive generations in human rights discourse with critical controversies in history. The Magna Carta (1215) intended to delegitimize the king’s appeal for divine rights, proclaims certain civil liberties. (For example, the right to a due process goes back to the Magna Carta - “no freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”). The declarations of the 17th and 18th century promote greater political and economic equality. Two major revolutions, in the United States and France, led to the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1793). Further, social and cultural rights are identified with the post-war era and anti-imperialist movements in the twentieth-century. Our understanding of the nature of human rights has therefore, been constantly shaped by historical controversies and debates. But does this lead to different visions of human rights? And if so, does this undermine an indivisible and universal conception of human rights? (Criteria that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 argues so strongly for – “a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge”). For example, the hardships suffered by refugees have led to pleas for fairer immigration laws in the developed world (“everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country” - UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights) however; immigration may conflict with the interests of the unemployed in the developed world (“everyone has the right to work” - UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights). While human rights cannot be legitimately limited by calls of public interest, when human rights come into conflict with each other, which rights take priority over others? 

Is a universal conception of human rights possible?

Posted on by
            When reading the declarations of human rights chronologically, one can associate the successive generations in human rights discourse with critical controversies in history. The Magna Carta (1215) intended to delegitimize the king’s appeal for divine rights, proclaims certain civil liberties. (For example, the right to a due process goes back to the Magna Carta - “no freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”). The declarations of the 17th and 18th century promote greater political and economic equality. Two major revolutions, in the United States and France, led to the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1793). Further, social and cultural rights are identified with the post-war era and anti-imperialist movements in the twentieth-century. Our understanding of the nature of human rights has therefore, been constantly shaped by historical controversies and debates. But does this lead to different visions of human rights? And if so, does this undermine an indivisible and universal conception of human rights? (Criteria that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 argues so strongly for – “a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge”). For example, the hardships suffered by refugees have led to pleas for fairer immigration laws in the developed world (“everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country” - UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights) however; immigration may conflict with the interests of the unemployed in the developed world (“everyone has the right to work” - UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights). While human rights cannot be legitimately limited by calls of public interest, when human rights come into conflict with each other, which rights take priority over others? 

Presidential elections in Venezuela.

Posted on by

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/americas/venezuela-victory-for-a-dissident.html

Here’s a New York Times article about a ruling by a human rights court in Latin America to allow for an opposition opponent to run in the presidential elections in Venezuela in 2012. While Chavez can be a progressive man of the people, his desire to be a benevolent dictator is pretty anachronistic in this day and age, especially in the midst of the demise of dictatorships in the Arab Spring.


Declarations of Rights

Posted on by

Declarations of rights throughout the ages are born out of the events and individuals of their times. While there are some universal and lasting principals, declarations are often declared following abuses of power inflicted during that era. Declarations of rights are also often seen as idealistic, something to strive for, but are often dismissed or ignored when they conflict with the self-interests of dominant governments.

Our readings start with the magna carta. Unlike the post-enlightenment decarations, the magna carta does not specify the equality and freedom of all. In fact, punishments under the law differ according to social class. The magna carta, while bestowing certain rights and freedoms to men they did not previously explicitly enjoy under the law, primarily aims to protect the rights and interests of the upper classes of men. Property and free trade are key to these rights. While widows are oft mentioned, women are still treated as lesser beings and not considered credible witnesses under the law.

The English bill of rights was born out of the catholic and protesant clashes of the era following the reign of king james, a catholic who was deemed a tyrant by the protestants. This Bill of rights focused much on the various injustices that the protestants accused king james of. Out of these injustices, the rule of law became enshrined as no laws could be suspended or executed without the consent of parliament.

The US Declaration of Independence was again influenced by the events of the day as the American colonists felt as though England was abusing their rights. While the US Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, it was stating rather that all states are equal, meaning the colonies should be allowed to be sovereign over themselves rather than be lorded over. This was not the era of equality of men, as most of the signers were slave holders. This declaration was more about conserving the colonists way of life and their social order rather than radically changing it. The colonies wanted to live the way they had been prior to 1763, fairly uninterrupted and taxfree. Like the English bill of rights, it was a condemnation of the king of England.

The Federalist papers posed many intriguing possibilities. It stated that a bill of rights was not actually necessary since a government for and of the people requires equality and the rule of law; it is not a monarchy which can bestow rights to its subjects, rather the equal citizens create their own system of government where equality is essential. Hamilton was a bit contrarian though as he also argued for the necessity of a strong central government, rather than the more democratic Jeffersonian style.

The French declaration seems to be the most idealistic and egalitarian of the enlightenment era, as it states not only is everyone equal but anyone has the right to do as they wish as long as it does not hurt others.  Again, this declaration was born out of the tyranny of a monarch.

The US Bill of rights is interesting, especially in our post 9/11 era where many, if not all, of these supposed inalienable rights have been suspended at sometime.

The human rights declarations of the post WWII era attempt to create a more egalitarian and peaceful world but as with the US Bill of rights, they are often ignored or suspended when the self interest of the dominant nations come into conflict with the declarations. The UN Charter  and its subsequent declaration of human rights are prime examples as they state the equality of all men and promise swift justice against aggressive nations but dominant nations such as America are never prosecuted when they violate the declaration and charter.

Declarations of rights are often born out of the tyranny of the era. While they create admirable goals to strive for in society, the self-interest of the dominant groups/nations often nullify these rights. Perhaps declaring rights allows for their ultimate suspension when it is deemed “necessary” for the ruling elite. If the world were truly equal, suspension of basic rights would not be a possibility.


What is a Sacred Mountain Worth

Posted on by

Article by Time Harvey, 2 Mar 2011, TheTyee.ca

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/02/SacredMountain/.

This makes no sense. How is it possible that a foreign-owned Canadian company looks at Mexico and says: “Hey, there is this random piece of land in that has a billion and a half dollars worth of silver under the ground. We can go in, pollute their water system, annihilate their aquifer, displace the communities, wipe out the third most biodiverse ecosystem in the world, and destroy the landscape in such a way that it will be unrecognizable for multiple centuries? Oh yeah..and uh..this place is coincidently on a reserve and is this random Indian tribes holiest place so they are kinda pissed off at us (but come’ on, it’s Mexico I mean, we as a large Canadian can rest assured that the Mexican government will put our economic interests before their own peoples legal, political, social and environmental interests) . The profits will be going to us anyway and best off all, thanks to those Free Trade Agreements we will not really be held responsible for any of the political, human or environmental injustices that will occur which is awesome cause let’s face it; whew! We know the shit that went down with that other mining company, did you hear about the guy that almost was almost beaten to death by the mine employees, yeah the guy that was protesting the mine… or that massive toxic leak that caused permanent mental damage in all the children under five in a nearby village….cheesh, that was some bad PR …” ?

What?

Really, in what kind of a world do we live in? Where human rights abuses and environmental destruction are foreseen in the project and the project can still continue? Where it is more certain than not that toxic chemicals will be leached into the water systems of the surrounding communities that will not even profit from this mine but will most like suffer from the consequences that sudden and abrupt change in the local economy, an influx of foreign influence and environmental degradation bring with it? This case contains abuse against human rights on so many levels. This mine will decrease access to the most fundamental requirement for human life: water. It is taking away a cultures right to practice religion freely and imposing an extremely imperialistic worldview on their culture. In accordance with Mexican law they have the right, as a minority with vested interest in the reserve, to be consulted. Then there is the ecological balance law, the law for handling of toxic substances and many more which have been outlined in the 2010 Declaration in Defence of Wirikuta. Despite this and fully with this knowledge the Vancouver based mining company is set to start an “aggressive drilling and exploration program” this year.

People have rights, and a right to fight for their rights in any way they can. I think the concept of human rights is often understood in a very formal way, as if writing them down on a piece of paper matters. It doesn’t; power is held by those that supplied the paper. It is held by the ones that developed the idea of a formalized social contract and made people think that it was therefore more binding than what they knew in their hearts. I am all for a social contract, don’t get me wrong and maybe formalizations of that contract are necessary. But let’s not get distracted by writing down  on paper what in theory should or should not be a right. Let’s remember why we have this social contract, why these rights are important and shouldn’t be broken. Let’s make this life long, distinguished and beautiful.

If you want to learn more about this issue, there is a silent auction fundraiser and information session at the Anza Club on October 13th at 8pm that will show a documentary and have a discussion session with a key Huichol leader.